Step 1: Google finds a large number of competitors who are doing pretty well playing by their rules. Google finds some trait they all have in common. Google then modifies their own ads to not have that trait.
Step 2: Google declares the given trait "not meeting the Better Ads standard", "clarifies" the standard (or their implementation of it), and blocks all their competitors ads. Their own ads of course are still meeting the new set of rules, as they knew the change was coming. If the Coalition for Better Ads disagrees or won't be bullied by the Goliath of advertising, Google will go form their own version of it claiming to be more strict, "for the sake of the users".
Step 3: After a few weeks or months, the competition will modify their ads and eventually everything will be back to normal. That's when Google goes back to step 1.
The final Step 4 is the opposite. Find a trait that none or few competitors have in their ads but would potentially increase click-through rates. Modify the rules to say that doing this thing is okay, and oh hey Google ads are doing that thing as of right now.
Why all of this? Because Amazon is growing in the advertising business and is ruthless. "Your margin is my opportunity". So Google needs an arsenal of dirty tricks up their sleeve.
Do I really believe this is the plan? No. I think Google are legit trying to meet a user need that exists. But I also know they're a publicly traded company with growing competition in a fierce industry. It's not what they plan to do that worries me, but what they can do when up against the wall.
1. Lots of people are using adblockers to block all ads, including Google's, and they don't like that.
2. People mostly install adblockers to block really annoying ads.*
3. By building in an adblocker that blocks annoying ads, people will stop installing full adblockers that also block Google's ads.
*There are real issues with non-annoying ads, like tracking, but I don't think most people know or care very much about that.
Many people use ad blockers because they want to block all ads. There are many reasons to block them, including malware, privacy, and brainwashing.
If ads works to manipulate behavior (and they do, otherwise people wouldn't buy them), and you don't want to be manipulated, you shouldn't let professionals attempt to hijack your brain (whether those attempts are done via ads, Facebook-style feeds, or other ways).
If I intend to purchase a product of a certain category, and would like to choose one with a particular property, but am under the assumption that no such product exists, and I see an ad for such a product, correcting my impression, I may, as a result, purchase that product instead of competitors which don't have the property that I desire, which satisfies both my own wants, and the wants of the company advertising the product.
This has happened to me at least once.
However, most ads that I see do not provide me with any new information, and the strategy of having ads follow users around after the first time they see it seems somewhat contrary to this type of benefit, and I don't totally understand why it is understood to be effective.
I do agree that the malware risk that current ad systems cause is bad, and it would probably be good if consumers behaved in such a way that the sort of ad systems that are a malware risk were no longer more financially viable.
If you have a proposed improvement on how to lead people who desire a product to discover that said product is available, I'd be interested in hearing it?
Most of the ads I see at the moment are on YouTube/Gmail and they are for things like junk food, "make money online" scam artists, and other garbage. Sometimes there are unblockable content ads on news sites that pretend to be news, but are really just paid content.
However, I don't think that by itself is sufficient for a condemnation of advertisement in general.
If the cost to the viewer (and the advertiser) of the ad impressions which [do not connect a consumer desiring a product to that product] is sufficiently low, then it could be possible for both consumers and advertisers to benefit on average. (Not to say that it is currently the case that they do.)
This is true even if the advertisers were to only benefit from the ad impressions which connected a consumer desiring a product desiring a product to said product.
So, I guess the question would be, whether or not the costs to consumers (and advertisers) when [not connecting people desiring a product to the product] can be made sufficiently small to make it a mutual benefit.
Of course, if that by itself was enough to lead to a mutual benefit, one could wonder why it would be included as part of something else that the consumer wishes to look at, rather than just being something that consumers might look at separately from other content. One possible reason could be that seeing it as part of other desirable content decreases the cost to the consumer when the product is not one that they desire. I'm not sure how much credence to assign to that reason.
Thinking on this, I suspect that direct mutual benefit between the advertisers and consumers would not in practice be a sufficient reason by itself for (e.g.) websites to tend to have ads on them, even if ads were restricted to have many fewer problems for consumers.
So, I think that it is likely that if not for the inconvenience of removing ads from websites they view, the main reason that consumers might deign to allow the ads to display on the webpages they view would be because of the benefit it provides to the owner of the website.
So, I guess I would recommend blocking ads which create more of a cost to you than you consider worth it in order to provide the benefit to website owners get from the ads being displayed to people who reason similarly to you?
It is my opinion that for a certain fairly restricted set of types of ads, that the average cost to me is sufficiently low that I am willing to incur it.
However, don't get me wrong: I definitely support the freedom to block whatever ads you wish (unless you have made a contract to do otherwise or something like that).
I think that ideally, the only ads that should be profitable should be the ones which impose extremely low costs on the viewer, and occasionally provide some benefit to the viewer (even if this is rare enough that the only reason the viewer deigns to see them is so that the website owner benefits).
It’s astounding when people think that advertising doesn’t affect them. And yet companies continue to pay billions for adverts...
I limit my exposure to marketing as much as I can.
It's called making data-driven decisions.
Step 1: Find a set of products that solve your problem based on independent reviews, e.g. what Stiftung Warentest writes.
Step 2: Use several price comparison engines, e.g. idealo, Preispiraten, Hardwareschotte to find the cheapest option for the products.
Step 3: Order there.
If you methodically follow this algorithm, you are immune to making ad-based decisions.
Human behavior is contagious, and advertisers know that. That's why actors in commercials pretend to be just another person like the viewer while lying about performing some action or behavior that the advertisers want the viewer to copy. I don't think that it's possible to suppress that behavior-imitating instinct completely. Humans are generally not very rational creatures -- not even the self-proclaimed rational ones.
Many ads are not just about some product that one might really need, like a keyboard or other equipment that is essential for a person's work. Many ads I see are about junk food, bad lifestyle choices, and trying to convince the public that bad entities are actually good entities (example: greenwashing).
Of course if you're a SV programmer earning 5-10 times the average wage, you don't care about this and buy overpriced shit every day, but many people follow this to the letter.
I know that advertising affects me. That's one of the reasons why I block ads at every opportunity.
I speak to a lot of people who find "retargeting" deeply creepy. The awareness of the problem is there. However, they don't understand what causes it, how it works or that it's even possible to stop it.
There was an electronics store called CompUSA. I didn’t always shop there but I did buy Christmas presents there. Then one year they started using transparent shopping bags. Which means you can’t shop for anybody that is on the trip with you, or lives with you. It made it a hassle to keep a secret and I just gave up.
So now if I am looking at jewelry for my partner, ads for the exact things I looked at will follow me around for the next several weeks. Dumber still, it will show me ads for an expensive item I already bought. Telegraphing my purchase history.
If someone just bought a new TV, then showing then TV ads is pretty much the dumbest move you can make. The target is at an all time low for probability of purchasing that item. And worse, you risk triggering buyer’s remorse. Repeatedly.
But this is Amazons engineering culture. Don’t reason about anything. Just try it and see. It’s amoral most of the time (but refusing to address ethics is itself immoral).
They are basically a giant factory for throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. I think all they can do is get more parasitic until people say no.
It certainly keeps them out of analysis paralysis, no question. But any armchair psychologist can tell you this is essentially numbing. Not listening to your fears or emotions can be as unhealthy as dwelling on them. Zero is not the only alternative to Too Much. These things take balance.
(regardless of the test results; if they were negative then any other concerns are redundant)
While I agree with your subjective experience -- right after buying product X I'm done, I wanna look at other stuff -- from a marketing/advertising perspective repeated ad exposures right after purchase actually do a lot to eliminate buyers remorse and reinforce our decision making. We're creatures of emotion first, logic second.
Seeing car ads after buying a car, unless it's the same model for less money, make you feel better about your purchase. I don't think that's why it happens online, but that's no small part of it in print and TV.
I don't really think there's any other kind of ad. For the majority of us, there's absolutely no value in ads; so there's no reason I'd want them displayed.
They do give value, they allow sites to operate without some subscription or entrance fee.
1. Declare all ad blockers in the Chrome Web Store now obsolete, and ban them.
That's why Mozilla's approach is tracking protection which also happens to block annoying ads.
But yes, if the concern is only bringing in line what people "feel" with the product you want to sell, then Google's strategy makes perfect sense.
So to me it's bad because it's opening up people's computers to exploitation that even Google can't control.
Is it good or bad to write a check to an orphanage for the publicity?
Is it good or bad to save someone's life because they owe you money?
Is it good or bad to block certain ads to make sure other ads still reach you?
If there is a growing product that works better, and fully blocks ads and your goal is only to quickly take over the market and do a worse job then I say 'no' that's not being altruistic...
If they put up a big banner saying "only works half as well at blocking ads as the competition" then maybe it's a little better.
99% of online tracking comes from Google Analytics, not ads.
> ...but I don't think most people know or care very much about that.
moreover when mozzilla made attempt to "non-tracking privacy-respectful ads" in the mr robot scandal everyone was at their throat.
how should site make money then?
How about providing a meaningful service and request adequate compensation? Paywalls work fine for quality content. There's tons of proof that people are willing to pay for books, games, movies, and music. But by having a paywall, you lose out on search indexing. You can't have your cake and eat it.
It _does_ get pretty hard to block if your ads are bespoke native advertisements, though.
Note that they are not being public with their list of sites that they will block ads on and reason why; nothing prevents them from putting sites on that list for any arbitrary reason they want.
I'd never use Google if Ublock didn't hide them.
I'd say that's obviously a good intention.
The fact that Google also can gain from it doesn't change that to me, but I realize others have different moral philosophies.
They are clearly prepared to counter any such allegation in two ways.
1) It's not Google alone setting the standard. The "coalition for better ads" also includes Facebook, Microsoft and many others: https://www.betterads.org/members/
2) The rules are few and reasonably simple: https://www.betterads.org/standards/
The combination of these two facts doesn't make it easy to pursue a strategy like the one you laid out. So I think this is sincere and can work to some degree.
BUT, the rules are insufficient! They don't ban animations. For me, anything that moves is a huge distraction especially next to or right in the middle of longer text.
Another extremely annoying thing is never ending layout changes. Pages keep jumping up and down because ads are being inserted and moved around all the time.
In other words, what this standard doesn't mandate is to keep the page still. That's why I like the reader mode in browsers that have one, such as Firefox and Safari.
I really can't concentrate with animation going on in in the corner.
Google "protects" us from visibly annoying ads while ignoring the much more troubling intrusive and problematic tracking.
The indirect effect of this, I believe, will be for fewer people to protect themselves from problematic cross-site tracking.
The problem with online ads and the reason that things are getting scummier and scummier is that they simply don't work very well for the advertiser. Most clicks are bogus; most prospects are unqualified. That's how Amazon wins: when you click Amazon, you are a buyer wanting to buy. That's why I would far more readily pay for an Amazon ad than a Google ad.
But Google could get back in the game and dominate it with one simple step. If, in their search page, they had a button that said "I am looking to buy" or something along those lines; in other words, if they helped prequalify the prospect, then their ads would become super valuable and they would effectively become the meta-Amazon. Everybody would start using Google again for shopping. Right now, it's mostly Google = Research, Amazon = Shopping, which is why Google search ads are fairly worthless.
I actually witnessed this flow one time: User has car from Budget rent-a-car. User things goole = internet, so goes to google, types "budget rental car" into search bar. Ad for Budget rent-a-car comes up. She clicks it to go to the page to check on her rental. So, Budget had to pay for a click from a user that was already trying to get to their page. From an advertiser's perspective that is not a good use of funds. It's almost as if Google has set up a gate that you have to pay to let your customers get through even after you've earned their business.
It seems that you are describing Google Shopping.
However it is decent.
I don't use Amazon, and find I use Google Shopping to find suppliers a lot.
Definitely agree with you on the long term capability. There's just so much risk having your web interface owned by someone with a vested interest in what you see.
In the meantime expect 3rd party attempts at gaming this functionality.
I think I missed some nuance. Is doing business is beyond reproach these days?
That is not my experience.
How exactly is this anti-competitive? The rules for ad guidelines are set by the Coalition for Better Ads and not Google. So any change in the rules that determine what an acceptable ad is must be approved by the coalition. The only scenario in which your hypothetical argument makes any sense is if Google controlled the coalition which they clearly do not and never will especially when you consider the caliber of companies in the coalition.
There isn't "good intentions". It's almost pointless to talk in that terms when it comes to multinational companies. Corporations don't work that way. They aren't charities. Google is acting in its own best interests - what's good for the shareholders. There is no other consideration.
This is confusing. EasyList is not bound to the "Better Ads Standards", its purpose is to block all ads, regardless of their perceived intrusiveness.
Also, I failed to understand why would EasyPrivacy be used: its purpose is outside that of "Better Ads Standards".
The article further claims:
> Google’s ad blocking capabilities will be on par with the best tools available from day one.
How is this even possible if the web sites targeted are only those which are not compliant "Better Ads Standards"?
The blockers making use of EasyList do not care about "Better Ads Standards", so the result can't possibly be "on par with the best tools available"
I would like to know how the author of the article got the information about EasyList and EasyPrivacy, I find it difficult to believe these would be used by Chrome's integrated blocker given its claimed purpose.
* * *
UPDATE: After looking around a bit, I understand better now how this works. As per ghacks.net, excerpt (my emphasis):
> Google Chrome will download rules from EasyList and EasyPrivacy at regular intervals and apply them to sites that failed reviews automatically.
So EasyList/EasyPrivacy are used on sites which fail to comply with "Better Ads Standards".
In retrospect I suffered reading comprehension, the sentence in the article was clear enough:
> These lists are used to limit what resources are loaded on websites identified by Safe Browsing as being non-compliant with the Better Ad Standards.
 Add to this that EasyList is just a complementary list on top of more advanced blocking features found on blockers such as uBlock Origin or Adguard.
People work hard on those lists, not sure they appreciate selective application of them.
Also, the statement "Google’s ad blocking capabilities will be on par with the best tools available from day one" is impossible like you claim because it's only a subset of what other blockers would do unless the author is claiming that not-blocking ads means better or on-par capability.
and that's what chrome's adblocker will do. The purpose of chrome's adblocker is not to block ads that don't conform to the better ad standards, it's to block ALL ads on websites that don't conform to the better ad standards. There's no way to block individual ads that don't comply, since the standards define things like the number of ads you can have visible at a time, or how close ads can be to each other. if your site is 90% ads and 10% content, which of those ads are intrusive and which ones should you allow through? So what google is doing instead is flagging the site as "has intrusive ads", and then blocking all advertising on that site.
>I would like to know how the article author got the information about EasyList and EasyPrivacy
the author says at the beginning of the article that this information comes from inspecting the chromium source code.
Wait, sites that failed automatic reviews or sites that somehow "automatically" failed reviews (sounds like, because of 'some reason' they aren't eligible so they default-fail). Because the latter would, of course, play right into Google's hand.
So, what it actually means is that if you follow the visual guidelines, which Google has been following for reputation reasons for a long time, then you get to track users all you want, which is where Google is market leader. If you don't follow the visual guidelines, then your ads and tracking gets blocked, fostering the monopoly of Google.
Sounds like a primary example of anti-competitive behaviour then.
 Unless I failed to find the relevant rules.
Google owns DoubleClick which is the biggest adserver on the planet and the #1 source of all the bad intrusive ads in the first place. This could've been easily solved years ago.
Most people think Google's push for HTTPS, both in Chrome and SEO rankings, is somehow related to privacy.
It's not. It's about net neutrality and it's about third parties being able to switch out Google's ads for their own, on-the-fly, using a middleman.
I interviewed with a stealth-level startup a few years back. They were developing a product, similar to a WiFi router, that would be installed on premise and sit there, filtering out Google/Facebook/etc. ads and replacing them with ads that the owner of the box wanted. You can imagine this box being installed in Starbucks, airports, libraries, and everywhere else. Cutting into a massive chunk of Google's ad revenue.
The Time Warners, AT&Ts, and Verizons of the world would also be doing this, for HTTP traffic.
We are getting the benefits of privacy. But it's not because Google has good intentions.
Funny, I was a similar boat once. They weren't a startup, yet. Good for them, because in both meetings I had to tell them their business idea was impossible unless they broke prime factorization. I was surprised I had to meet them the second time.
Oh, and their business idea was a little more intrusive than merely replacing ads. They wanted to be able to read people's emails and Facebook data and serve targeted advertising based on that.
Google and other major ad networks all have the same policies as it provides PR insurance and plausible deniability for their clients. However, they absolutely do not enforce these rules to any reasonable extent which is not only an open secret in the ad industry but incredibly easy to test and prove yourself.
Maybe they will be good, but I for one am not comfortable with this.
Imagine what happens when chrome decides Facebook ads deserve to be blocked.
If they were to provide a real adblocker, allowing people to opt-in to ads on sites they like, while blocking everything else, I'd have considered it, on the basis that any technology running in-browser must be more fast/efficient than an extension. But this initiative is just them trying to get people to drop their adblocker and get tracked again.
All things being equal, I think I'll keep my uBlock extension - at least until Google kicks it out of their web store. I believe that would be the next logical step for them :(
The principle of ads is repugnant to me. There's no way to make it better. I don't need to be psychologically manipulated to buy things I don't need. There's no way to make that manipulation ok. What Google considers acceptable, I consider subtle and even more manipulative, trying to sneak it in where most people won't object to the intrusion.
There are other ways. Ask for donations, like Wikipedia (which as I understand it, is rolling in the dough). Fund it with taxes. Set up a plain ol' paywall and revitalise the slow, inefficient banking system until sending money tiny amounts of money is as easy as clicking "I agree" in an Apple EULA. If we're so strapped for cash that websites will crumble unless we all submit ourselves to the Ludovico technique, surely we have enough of an incentive to work on micropayment technology instead.
For example, "Optimizers" currently have to guess at what Google is doing, but if the system was open source, they would know exactly.
For another example, modern cryptography actually benefits from openness. Is there a similar possibility for Search?
Something like this is almost entirely informative for someone looking for information about the product:
And the same goes for quite a few trailers and ads. Oh sure, they obviously want you to buy the product, and will pick the best footage to make it look good, but they also act as a nice quick summary of the story and what you'll actually be getting from it.
It's why even the BBC are fine with advertising their own shows in the same way.
And let's not forget how oftentimes these things being posted can be seen as a big event in itself. Something like E3 or a Nintendo Direct is literally just advertising for the company or companies involved. Yet millions of people treat the advertising event in the same way as a hotly anticipated TV show or sporting event, because it provides them a way to see what's been worked on and find out more about something they're interested in. Same sort of thing with the Superbowl ads being a draw in themselves. Or how Disney releasing a trailer for the next new Star Wars film would cause a huge reaction online.
So ads in of themselves aren't necessarily a bad thing. They certainly can be if they're exploitative (like, payday loan advertising or sugary foods being advertised in kids shows), lie through the teeth about the product (like No Man's Sky and Aliens Colonial Marines) or harm the consumer or their property (like malware ads and tracking online), but they can also be an art in themselves and a perfectly valid way of learning more about a new product.
If online ads were relevant to the content, didn't track the user or try and run scripts on their machine and worked about the same way they do in a real life newspaper or magazine (or the trailers before movies) then that would be acceptable and rightly classed as 'better'.
The lists serve different purposes. EasyList is a lit of ad-serving URLs to block. The uh, consortium list is a black/white list of which sites don't follow the standards. The standards are not about bad ads, but about sites that use ads in bad ways. The standards can't be automatically enforced since software can't reliably determine if an ad is a popunder or otherwise intrusive due to placement. Sites would quickly use CSS/JS hacks to work around the classifier.
I think "serve different purposes" could be rephrased to "serve different overseers". I can't find a reason for the tech difference.
That is, if site foo.com and bar.com both serve ads, but foo.com is on the "blacklist", the ad blocking will be enabled on foo.com. However, ad blocking will remain disabled on bar.com.
It's not Google's intention to block all ads on all sites - only ads on "bad" sites. If they can reduce the number of adblock installs by reducing the overall number of invasive ads, they can keep their own ad business from folding.
I see this as a shot at piracy sites, if anything. Since they cannot join reputable ad networks, they join disreputable ones that don't even try to police their ads or publishers and show shady and misleading ads. Those will all be blocked now, choking the piracy sites of revenue.
The primary beneficiaries are content producers. The secondary beneficiaries are Internet companies that are hit by botnets.
They don't have a choice. Either they join the cartel or they watch their ads vanish entirely from the most popular browser.
I don't think this is an either/or thing. Google is doing something with positive externalities. But it also so happens to align 100% with their commercial interests.
 edit: "entirely" is hyperbole. But even a low percentage is worth giving in for.
Why do you think they didn't want to join? They get the same benefits as Google and the Internet at large. I'm having a hard time following your logic for why this is Google attacking its competitors if its competitors are unaffected by the change.
Your analogy is good. Google and Chrome Adblocker is just like ADT and the "BTK Killer".
His wife kids didn't know, nobody knew.
They don't seek to inform you so much as they seek to inform you that something exists whilst manipulating your emotions to get a particular reaction out of you and millions of other people. This is particularly blatant in AV ads.
The other thing, mainly regarding software ads, is they don't seek to inform you so much as manipulate you whilst tracking your every move to guarantee that the ad was effective. This is particularly blatant with the Google and Facebook ad networks, but pretty much almost any 2-bit ad company you've heard of on the web at least tries to do something similar.
So in the end, advertising has at least two major problems with trying to either 1. manipulate you directly through your emotions or 2. manipulating your computer bandwidth and CPU time to violate your privacy and oftentimes, security.
Regarding #1, there are always going to be people that think they're smart enough, intelligent enough, or logical enough that they will never fall prey to this vector of advertising, and almost universally they are wrong. I don't doubt some few exceptions exist, I just don't think I've ever actually met someone who is an exception, nor am I under any illusions that I am. Your best defense is to cut ads out of your life to greatest extent possible. You'll probably never cut bus ads out of your life, if you at all enjoy city living, but you don't have to let advertisers into your home either.
How do you find out about things after that point? If you are at all social, read any kinds of news sites, invest any money into markets, have any kind of skin in some kind of game, or engage in any kind of recreational activities, you'll have other channels of information. Generally the signal will be of a much higher quality than if you were personally bombarded with advertisements intentionally seeking to cut out a large slice of your overall attention bandwidth every single day.
But I don't hate the concept of advertising. I don't deny being influenced by ads, or even sometimes finding them informative. I just reject being tracked and targeted.
Instead, I get ads for interesting new components on DigiKey or Mouser, or the similar, and I find myself clicking on ads several times a week because I'm genuinely interested in what I see -- it's like a news feed for unusual devices.
Imagine if your Twitter feed was served several tweets at a time embedded in other sites you regularly visit. You could argue it's a distraction, but but it's far from unpleasant. "Personalized ads" work a lot the same way for me.
Advertising is primarily about making you buy a product from a particular company, whether it's a good product or not, whether it's right for you or not.
If it were about letting people know your products then 'Nide' would have "if you want these for cross-training the best show are 'Reebob' Cross2" on the advert for their training shoes.
Advertising is almost orthogonal to informative disclosure.
Advertisers want to make sure their customers don't forget to buy their stuff. This is much easier than actually convincing non-customers to do something new.
Don't let advertising companies fool you. Your entire purpose to them is to be just as valuable as the average slaughterhouse cow
That a pretty simplistic view. I never said ads are 100% true and want the best for you. Ads are informational as they inform you of the existence of a product and their basic characteristics. Small, well-targeted ads can be the only way someone that's just starting could have to let people know about the existence of their product. They don't hold a gun at you to force you to buy a product, they don't remove competition between companies, they don't prevent third-party review sites from existing. Buying or not buying them is up to each individual.
For me, that first number is very, very low. I consume just like a lot of other folks, but its mostly art stuff. I have money in my account mostly because I don't have much I actually want that doesn't take some saving for. Mostly, I think these people just want my information or want me to pass on their advertisements. Clothing wants me to advertise for them with products splattered with their logo. They can go diddle themselves.
Want me to watch ads? Pay me. Have actual ad standards. Stop trying to trick me with "information". Stop trying to trick me with popups. And so on. Until then, back to the diddling.
There's no "better approach".
I can't imagine that Google would start blocking their own ad network, let alone their own ads. Therefore, I'm sticking with an ad blocker that I control.
The specific shade of yellow was indiscernible from background white on a cheap laptop at almost any angle. I wish I'd taken a photo when I noticed. I knew people who had never even noticed the yellow, at all, let alone understood it was ads.
I know, Never Attribute To Malice and all that, but hot damn, that must have been a massive multi million dollar move of "ignorance".
Malice or not, that yellow was surely intentional, and working as intended.
I think that this saying gets misapplied quite frequently. If you are talking to someone one on one, then you should assume that they are simply mistaken. Otherwise, you don't stand a chance of convincing them to see things another way. On the other hand, in trying to predict somebody else's actions, assuming malice can give the most accurate prediction.
On the part of Google, I don't know whether the nigh-unidentifiable ads are the result of some cackling executive trying to trick people to click on ads, or whether it is the result of overzealous A/B testing that stumbled upon a dark pattern. In the end, it doesn't matter, and either one is a good approximation of what will happen in the future.
Google motto 2004: Don't be evil
Google motto 2010: Evil is tricky to define
Google motto 2013: We make military robots
References directly the founders letter, I do not have a link to that but I am not making this up.
Yeah, me too, but I don't think Google hopes to convince adblock users to revert to an adblock-free experience.
They're probably hoping (as is indeed stated in the article) that by removing the biggest pain points they will stop new users from seeking adblocking solutions.
We'll see what happens, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable thing to hope for.
Same, and that is on Firefox too (both mobile and pc).
I don't understand companies, when I run some ad-block I clearly state that I _do not want to see ads_. Period.
It doesn't matter the format or how it looks, I just don't want too see ads and I get pissed if I do so it's actually bad for the company advertising.
I do a search for "Pay Lowes Credit Card"
The first couple of results are legit but everything afte ris some BS Scam.
If the chrome team and google’s ad teams were not controlled by the same unit that primarily makes money from ads it would have been ok, but given that they do, what incentive will they have to block their own ads and how much more powerful is it making their own network?
Sadly, chrome is still the easiest browser to use, especially as a developer
^- This is breaking up an illegal monopoly. Shuffling around which division owned by Larry Page and Sergey Brin it is is not.
Google doesn't determine what ads are blocked. That's done by the coalition that's composed of the following members and affiliate:
1. Why do you guys downvote civil, informative posts that just happen to be philosophically different than yours? Seems anti-knowledge, and a net negative to HN.
2. What do you think pays for the internet? This is the first time I've ever engaged in a discussion, but I've been lurking for a year or two, and at least half of the links shared in the comments are ad-supported. Probably more. Sharing information is going to be more difficult when the money dries up and everything is behind a paywall.
3. People are annoyed that they see the same ad over and over again, but "tracking" is a cardinal sin. How is this supposed to work?
By paying, not with your data but with your money.
Why does Linux work if nobody pays for it? People like to work on it and it's a community project useful to everyone. Lots of site are run this way, but too many see that they could make a few pennies out of it and turn that way. Then it turns to a dependency, people start blocking ads, and oh my god the whole internet cannot be paid for, you argue.
I'd much rather pay for things that are expensive (large sites like HN and Reddit, streaming licenses like Spotify, bandwidth and storage of Youtube, etc.) if then they didn't try to invade my privacy. In fact, I do pay for Reddit and Spotify. Youtube won't stop invading my privacy because they're Google's and HN does not have a donation option.
I host websites myself and it costs me a little, but even HN-frontpage events are not expensive enough to warrant subjecting my visitors to modern ads (which means not only annoying ads, but sometimes malware, and always invasive tracking).
> 1. Why do you guys downvote civil, informative posts that just happen to be philosophically different than yours?
I suspect you can't point out which post you're talking about or you'd reveal your real account, so I don't know what you're talking about specifically. I'm going to wager it's because they think those arguments didn't further the discussion and are really just plain wrong. (That's what I think they think, not saying that I think so, because I still have no idea which post it is about.)
First link is about fraud against advertisers, selling them fake ad impressions. Second link is about a sophisticated scheme to deliver malware to the end users using the ad ecosystem.
How does that dispute the fact that people who have websites can profit from putting ads on them?
And the code reviews cover the feature are tagged with DNR: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/?polygerrit=0#/q/Dn...
Edit: this may just be the net blocking code.
Also, from what I gather from their docs, this is only for the ad-block-filter formatted lists. For their own super-secret-better-ads list, they use safe browsing lists which use a hash-some-then-phone-home approach IIRC . I mean, even Mozilla that uses the safe browsing lists says at  that the internal documentation  is only available under NDA.
0 - https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/v4/local-databas...
1 - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Safe_Browsing
2 - https://mana.mozilla.org/wiki/display/FIREFOX/Safe+Browsing
Of course, looking at the code, I am not seeing where cosmetic filters are supported. Also, you should include the code from https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/extensions/common/api/d... in this I think. Also, there's the safe browsing code at https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/components/safe_browsin... of which the author references db/util.h.
0 - https://github.com/cretz/doogie/blob/master/src/blocker_rule...
1 - https://github.com/brave/ad-block
> ... Google Safe Browsing service. Chrome checks every website you visit against a list of malicious websites that it periodically downloads from Safe Browsing.
So I have always disabled Safe Browsing because I assumed it was sending all my browsing activity to Google in real time to be checked. But this sounds like it's checking locally from a downloaded list. Anyone know if that's correct?
Documentation for the Safe Browsing implementation in Firefox can be found here.
If you don't want to read , I think the Golang parser/lookup at  is a reasonable interpretation of what they're doing, but not sure. You can see there that the hashes generated are of different-host-combinations + different-URL-path-combinations. They do the partial hash check in a DB (local, downloaded periodically). If there's a partial hash in the DB, they phone home w/ that partial hash for the full hashes and check if it matches.
So Google gets the partial hash of a URL it had told you could be bad. They return the full hashes for that partial hash. We can hope (and see) that the partial hashes do not match a broad set (and they are host possibility + URL path combo possibility). Surely Google has something that maps the hashes to actual URL patterns, but like the other commenter said, the partial hash you send is only sent when it matches a local DB already.
0 - https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/components/safe_browsin...
1 - https://github.com/google/safebrowsing/
It sends the first 4 bytes of a 32 byte SHA-256 hash of the URL. There isn't a reasonable map back for that.
The incentive is ad blockers. The means is "Coalition for Better Ads."
Can't trust them to fight against tracking. Can't trust them to eliminate malvertising. Can't trust them to unblock your website in a timely manner or give good feedback about what is wrong with it. Can expect them to keep obnoxious use of advertising down to stop the whole industry from collapsing.
Google is also adding more and more proprietary APIs to their browser, which Mozilla will not be able to implement (Chromecast, Google Earth, Hangouts) or is adding pseudo-webstandards, which have been publicly specified, but they did not push it through the standardization process to reach an agreement with other browser vendors (e.g. WebSQL, File Storage API).
You're also saying "plenty of browsers". There's hardly any browsers that don't use Trident/EdgeHTML, Gecko or KHTML/WebKit/Blink. If they use one of those, then there's the major browsers IE/Edge, Firefox or Safari/Chrome that webpage owners will test/build against and as a result also cause it to work on that fork, meaning that yeah, those forks can easily implement an ad blocker without much to fear.
But that's not the case, if you are such a major browser yourself. Then webpage owners will notice and will not have any reason to optimize against your browser engine anyways.
Nice to hear adblocking performance is set to have a huge boost as soon as extension authors figure out how to hijack the filter to return a BETTER_ADS violation for all sites.
But I really don’t like the idea of corporations making decisions about what ads we get to see. It’s a slippery slope to go down. The existence of an entity which may even be “blamed” by content creators for taking their money(not exactly, but to some extent) for not meeting a standard they virtually have very little control over is almost un-democratic.
And I won’t be surprised if there are some “oops, these guys meet all criterias but are still getting blocked” unintentionally(or even intentionally) by Google.
I don’t use Chrome very often, but I’d recommend everyone to disable this feature when it ships(and use ublock/other open source blockers if one has to).
However, I have realized that by blocking all Ads I am missing out on some cultural things, events that I want to know about. Movie information (Avengers, Hellboy, etc.) is one thing that I don't get informed of anymore. I didn't even see the latest Spiderman Homecoming movie in theaters because I had no idea it was even out until it was too late. I'm sure there are other things that I'm missing out on, but it's hard to know what you don't know.
Anyway, I think Ads are not evil or bad but they do need to be targeted better. If the Ad companies can figure out how to tell me about things I care about, or will possibly care about in the near future, then I'm OK with being exposed to them. If anyone should be able to do this it would be Google (they know everything about me). So I turned of uBlock Origin and started using Chrome's built-in blocker. So far it's been terrible; I'm seeing all kinds of Ads for things I just don't care about. I think I'm going back to my blocker. :/
If you block marketing you are blocking a part of society. It reminds me of a Christian friend who never watches television.
Is there any reason you would ever want to see anything from DoubleClick?
I for one, hope there's some kind of blocking for embedded videos. I haven't had luck with the existing solutions out there.
Google is doing this to make sure their ads will be displayed. If chrome has built in ad blocking many people won't feel the need to install ad blockers that block all ads.
Another point mentioned is that this could be used in the future to hamper business of their competitors. It is very unlikely that this is why it was created, but don't forget that Google is a publicly traded company, if they will be pressed against a wall they will use anything available, and this could cause a serious damage against their competitors.
That will be the day when fewer people search using Google, and someone will come up with noadoogle.
Ads are a poor method for making money and the system is horribly gamed at every opportunity. Anything worth having is worth paying for. Google and their ilk have ruined the Internet and the general online landscape by dint of offering "free" services that are not really free; people pay for them dearly with lack of privacy and security and the return of a "free" service is not worth what is given.
I have happily paid for Fastmail since 2002. They are security conscience, responsive, and give a damn about their customers. I will use no one else. They are very transparent with their issues and enjoy providing their use base with information regarding their running of the company. Good luck with Google or Microsoft giving even paying customers this level of service and transparency.
Google have become too powerful. Way too powerful. They have their awful ads, beacons, and trackers on most websites and people just blissfully go along with it. I use zero Google services and block all of their tracking with a Pi-hole and other software tools. Ditto allowing no Android devices on my network. Getting into bed with Google in any way, shape, or form is literally giving away your privacy for a few trinkets that are worth nothing. If it's worth having, it's worth paying for. It's all an electronic leash...
On HN, please make your points without stooping to personal swipes.
Admittedly, I've only been on the DevOps side of content marketing -- and even at that, only on the cloud infrastructure side of it -- but, I think that just about everyone knew that while writing your own content and then selling your own ad inventory was ideal, if you couldn't sell your own ad inventory, DFP was the second best play for the income.
To me, this screams, "Even if you have other ads, if they're not DFP-compliant, we won't show them if they are from our browser."
I may be completely wrong...but, who knows.
if you couldn't sell your own ad inventory,
DFP was the second best play for the income
Facebook seem to have done an incredibly good job of reducing their exposure to the browser. That comes at the cost of exposure to Android, but it feels like Google are going to find blocking Facebook ads in the Facebook app way harder than in their website.
That's all a little bit irrelevant though because Facebook are members of the 'coalition for better ads' anyway.
I have a feeling this is going to lead to an increase in both of those behaviors.
Where is the outrage now "how do they dare assume that I don't want to see annoying ads by default?"
- Install uMatrix (firefox/chrome add-on)
Get uMatrix folks.
I did this for a while but it all got to be too much trouble honestly. Now I just run uBlock in default configuration and also have an /etc/hosts file, and browser set to clear all history and cookies when closed.